Open Thread 2019-20

I have not come to the part regarding how to cut the oligarchs loose. Bart at 20 wrote.

They are cut loose in the sense of their power being largely removed and being financially diminished.

Ex. is illustrative merely, off the cuff, choosing a non-random guy like Bill Gates.

The co. is broken up into bits, some parts left free, others are nationalised or come under the umbrella of a public-private partnership. (Shareholders inherit ‘bits’ - their shares are bought back - they take a loss - combination of all these..)

For ex. Bing (search engine) could be run by a small Board composed of Gvmt. / Microsoft / citizens.

His personal fortune is taxed at a v. high %. The B and M Charitable Foundation, which is not just ‘rich clods aiming to be admired by investing in the local orchestra’ but a political tool, is either nationalised, heavily supervised, killed off, etc. B and M get to keep some of their mansions, money, status - punishing them is not the aim.

I am only outlining ‘possibles’ that *might* be (have been..) accepted by the public and which could be enforced in certain conditions, based on what has been done many times in the past (see ex. Putin vs. oligarchs), but as james says, none of this will come to pass. The time, or window of oppo, for such ‘regulatory’ moves by a ‘strong’ (mmm?) US Gvmt. was never on the cards.

-student debt and small farmer debt is an absolute scandal- cancelled.

Further, sources contend that the nearly year long investigation by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, will reveal explosive information and shed light on alleged malfeasance by FBI and DOJ officials directly involved in the Russia investigation. The Inspector General’s report may be completed as early as May or June, according to testimony provided this week by Attorney General William Barr.

"And why did "America First" Trump hire Manafort who had extensive Russian contacts and pro-Russian activities that drew the ire of US officials?"

You've been played! :)

This essentially (partially) repeats another myth; that there was Russian meddling but that Trump wasn't involved. That is, the next stage of Russiagate, as it were, which vindicates Trump but still condemns Russia

Manafort was not involved with pro-Russian (Government and/or Putin) contacts or activities. Manafort was entirely concerned with profiting while promoting US interests. The people he was involved with were largely Russian-Ukrainian oligarchs who rose to power because of the western rape of Russia during the nineties, pirates who identified/supported the western model, and did not, in anyway, support Putin's renewal of a stronger Russian state and reversal (or control) of their exploitation.

But Manafort is definitely not the kind of person a legitimate Presidential candidate would select as their Campaign Chairman, and you wouldn't want Roger Stone involved in your campaign either, if your campaign was really concerned about change or draining the swamp as both are quintessentially swampy (and might be considered an unnecessary risk to the overall message, particularly as both were useless and past it/out of date and had nothing to offer).

Manafort's connections with US political leaders allowed him to sell his services to countries around the world. His primary interest seems to have been to enrich himself but his involvement with pro-Russian Ukrainians drew the ire of US officials (see bolded part below).

I would be very surprised if the Trump campaign did've known of Manafort's activities and the Deep State's unhappiness with it.

Manafort was hired to advise Yanukovych months after massive street demonstrations known as the Orange Revolution overturned Yanukovych's victory in the 2004 presidential race. Borys Kolesnikov, Yanukovych's campaign manager, said the party hired Manafort after identifying organizational and other problems in the 2004 elections, in which it was advised by Russian strategists. Manafort rebuffed U.S. Ambassador William Taylor when the latter complained he was undermining U.S. interests in Ukraine.

In 2010, under Manafort's tutelage, the opposition leader put the Orange Revolution on trial, campaigning against its leaders' management of a weak economy. Returns from the presidential election gave Yanukovych a narrow win over Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a leader of the 2004 demonstrations. Yanukovych owed his comeback in Ukraine's presidential election to a drastic makeover of his political persona, and—people in his party say—that makeover was engineered in part by his American consultant, Manafort...

The Associated Press has reported that Manafort negotiated a $10 million annual contract with Deripaska to promote Russian interests in politics, business, and media coverage in Europe and the United States, starting in 2005.

[Manafort] ... returned to Ukraine in September 2014 to become an advisor to Yanukovych's former head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine Serhiy Lyovochkin.... Manafort was instrumental in creating a new political party called Opposition Bloc (a group opposed to the US-allied government!).

Associated Press reported on August 17, 2016, that Manafort secretly routed at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012 on Party of Regions' behalf, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy.

The article has a list of the instances of the Trumpies 'destroying the last fragments of the post-World War 2 international security system.'

Dropping out of the INF treaty, giving the apartheid Jewish state land which belongs to Syria, blatantly intervening in Venezuela. Lots more, but it all shows that another attempt to make a poke at Russia is not unthinkable. That brand new bridge to Crimea might take some major damage. For all I know NATO might have some scheme which could lead to Turkey being forced to allow unlimited passage of ships into the Black Sea - or else.

Crazy speculations of course, but then there are some mighty crazy Trumpies at work these days.

California Representative Eric Swalwell announced his candidacy for president on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last night, bringing the total number of Americans demanding that Eric Swalwell run for president to exactly one. It also brings the total number of candidates officially running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination to a whopping 18.

With every new Candidate, the influence of the Superdelegates increases. We may yet end up with some yahoo who yells "On To Iran" in his acceptance speech at the Convention.

The Ukrainian population can be viewed as 50% Russian origin and 50% Polish origin (this is a huge simplification). One half is more sympathetic to the West, the other to Russia. This is not the same as your use of the belittling term 'pro-Russian Ukrainian' because that implies an elite controlled by Russia which was not the case. A lot of what the Wikipedia article states is just retro-fitted post-Maidan and is misleading. The point is that Manafort was progressing western interests (at the time) while making a lot of money.

Deripaska is no friend of Putin, he is a pirate oligarch and wants a return to the bad old days of the nineties.

Wikipedia is fine for checking Lady Gaga's discography but is not what you should be relying on if you are determined to give credence to the Russian meddling claptrap.

And as for Manafort, he goes to prison for a few years but I imagine in return he gets to keep his ill-fitted gains.

If you want to believe that Manafort was acting in Russia's interest then that means you must believe in Russiagate to some extent. And, if so, your theory implies that Trump must have known this but your theory states that Trump was an agent of the Deep State. And then your theory begins to collapse into nonsence, because it would amount to saying Russiagate was true, the only point of difference is that it wasn't just Trump, it was the whole Deep State that was behind it.

1. Not everything written in English Wikipedia is true. Especially when the topic is sensitive to the Empire. I’m sure you realize that — yet, when it comes to Ukraine, you somehow forget about it.

2. There were no “pro-Russian Ukrainians” among the elite. There were two groups: 1) Russia-smearing history-rewriting Nazi-collaborators-glorifying pro-EU pro-NATO group, actively sponsored and supported by the Empire and its various political, media, and intelligence branches, and 2) non-Russia-smearing non-history-rewriting Soviet-victory-respecting pro-EU maybe-NATO group, supported by oligarchs from Eastern Ukraine who did not want to join EAEU (then called Customs Union) for fear of being overtaken by Russian business interests. The second group was constantly blackmailing Russia: “If you don't give us low energy prices and if you don't choose our low-quality products over your own producers’ high-quality products, the Banderites will win!” So Russia was giving this second group most of what they demanded. Those were great times for the Ukrainian economy. Meanwhile, this second group was doing nothing to stop the Banderites’ rewriting of Ukrainian history and their Russia-smearing campaign. In fact, Yanukovych administration was sponsoring far-right movements, including neo-Nazi Svoboda party. The logic behind that was, again, to scare Russia into giving Ukraine various economic handouts. The Banderites, of course, played along, assuring Yanukovych that they are in his pocket, while secretly plotting his overthrow. By the way, “pro-Russian” Lukashenko is doing the same thing in Belarus now.

3. It was under Yanukovych that the plan to join the EU was developed. Many EU integration projects Poroshenko is boasting of were, in reality, started under Yanukovych.

4. Serhiy (Sergei) Lyovochkin, then-head of Yanukovych presidential administration, was a traitor who conspired with Maidan leaders. It was he who secretly set up the famous “beating of students” which started off the Euromaidan protests. People didn’t come out to the streets after Yanukovych’s postponement of signing of the EU association agreement, as is frequently misreported. People came out to the streets after the “beating of students”. Which never happened in reality. There were, indeed, students camping out in protest on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) that night. To the south of them along the Khreshchatyk street, a group of burly adult men started throwing bricks at the riot police — which for some strange reason appeared there in the middle of the night — for which these men were heavily beaten. Next morning, all oligarch-owned media (including media owned by Lyovochkin) as well as many Western media came out with the headlines about the “brutal beating of young students”. Stories were told of how the police broke the arm of a female student, etc. And that’s when the protests have started. It was Lyovochkin who staged the event.

5. More than half of members of the “pro-Russian” Partiya Regionov (Party of Regions) have immediately switched allegiance to the Maidan side after Yanukovych left Ukraine. Many of them changed allegiance while Yanukovych was is still in Ukraine, in Kharkov, where he was trying to rally his supporters. The rest have formed the Opposition Bloc, which is hardly “pro-Russian” if you actually read what they say.

The only pro-Russian thing Manafort has done was Deripaska-related lobbying. In Ukraine, he was serving the Empire’s interests by pushing Yanukovych to accelerate the movement of Ukraine towards the EU — at the expense of Ukrainians’ own economic well-being.

"11 Apr 1945 US forces liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp. However, many of those interned in camps for homosexuality were not freed by the Allies, but required to serve out the full term of their sentences under the Nazi penal code. [My Emphasis]

That we're reminded of that fact which upends a very longstanding lie/myth on the day Assange is arrested on an additional set of lies ought to make us stop to think for a bit about what we think we know. IMO, leaving those prisoners to rot is every bit as immoral as the atomic bombings of Japan. I wonder if gays would join the Outlaw US Empire's military if they were aware of that history. Yeah, I know: blacks and other minorities, especially Latinos, enlisted in a known racist organization.

Under the Allied Military Government of Germany, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment, regardless of the time spent in concentration camps. The 1935 version of Paragraph 175 remained in effect in the Federal Republic (West Germany) until 1969, so that well after liberation, homosexuals continued to fear arrest and incarceration.

Surely you know of Britain driving Alan Turing to suicide when he was "treated" with chemical castration. Whether it ought to have been or not, homosexuality was almost universally considered to be a crime back then. In theory the Allies wouldn't have released known murderers or rapists, either.

Regarding those "immoral" atomic bombings of Japan, I'd have to ask about the alternatives to them. One was to give the entire Japanese Government a "get out of jail free" card (as actually happened with their Chemical/Biological warfare unit), and the other was an invasion which would have killed many millions of Japanese.

I understand the limitations of Wikipedia. I use it only for quickness and to illustrate the point I made.

Trump’s hiring of Manafort made little sense except that it furthered the Russiagate hoax that was promoted after the election. Trump did other things that promoted the hoax as well, including: calling on Russia to release Hillary’s emails; praising Wikileaks release of DNC emails (now he says he doesn’t know them!), and praising Putin.

Manafort was either used, complicit, or set up. My guess is set up because he was prosecuted and then the settlement was rescinded. I imagine that he had gone too far when trying to enrich himself thinking that his connections would protect him.

I wonder if Mueller wanted Manafort to testify against Wikileaks. After the settlement was rescinded MSM started reporting about Roger Stone’s connection to Wikileaks. Seems like Stone’s testimony is “Plan B” for a Wikileaks prosecution.

At least Sanders openly proclaims the truth which almost no one is willing to admit, that the Zionists and the Palestinians cannot co-exist and that one of them has to go; for the Zionist state to exist requires the genocide of the Palestinians (i.e. the only real Semites there). Of course Sanders sides with the genocidal aggressor. He would.

1) That Trump would act in a way that furthered Russiagate makes sense in the context of the theory that I've proposed.

==
2) Manafort's connections to Russians are about as relevant as Trump's selling of condos to Russians. Which is to say the purported connection may be weak and immaterial but can be made to seem more than it is by skillful media assets.

Manafort is a political consultant. He was hired to do a job. His job was to get Trump elected. There's no evidence that Manafort used any Russian connections (if he had any) to tip the scales in favor of Trump.

==
3) But it's possible that Manafort could also have run afoul of the Deep State. I don't see him as necessarily "pro-Russian", but as a (greedy) businessman.

It could be that some in the Deep State believe that he went too far in his pursuit of business - and that he did so knowing that it angered some important people. This would help to explain why his settlement was rescinded.

It's one thing to pressure Manafort to testify against Assange/Wikileaks, it's another to vindictively prosecute him for not doing so. That's what leads me to surmise that Manafort may have pissed off the Deep State (or Ukrainians with connections to the Deep State) prior to his work for the Trump campaign.

==
4) Whatever his ties with "pro-Russians" or Russians themselves, I don't believe that Manafort's work for Trump constitutes Russian interference. That's because it's clear to me that Trump was already selected to win. As I've said: in August 2014, Kissinger - "dean" of the US FP establishment - warned of the Russia-China challenge and called for MAGA, and Trump was the MAGA candidate.

Plus, Manafort didn't help Trump to win. He wasn't with Trump long enough to make much of a difference at all. He was there only long enough to add to Russiagate suspicions - which would largely arise AFTER the election.

And you still push the idea of Russiagate as if it was valid when it was a fraud.

Let me spell out the logic trap you insist on putting yourself in.

If Manafort was Pro-Russia then he was Putin's man.

If Trump appointed Manafort and did not know he was Putin's man then that means Trump can't have been an agent of the deep state - it would mean that Trump was a genuine candidate or was a dupe (either way your theory's dead).

If Trump did know that Manafort was Putin's man then Trump was also Putin's man - which would mean that Trump was put in place by Russia.

And then the only way your theory can survive is if the entire deep state were also involved in Russiagate, and that Putin runs America or is part of the deep state that runs America - And that is absolute nonsense.

You escape this ignoble end to your theory by just accepting that Manafort was not pro-Russian and that the entire Russiagate fiasco is just a load of bollocks.

@114 Zachary Smith
"Regarding those "immoral" atomic bombings of Japan, I'd have to ask about the alternatives to them. One was to give the entire Japanese Government a "get out of jail free" card (as actually happened with their Chemical/Biological warfare unit), and the other was an invasion which would have killed many millions of Japanese. "
Here are the alternatives:
a) See if the USSR's declaration of war on August 8 (the USSR had agreed to declare war on Japan after the defeat of Russia once Germany was defeated and I believe that the US knew the timing of the declaration) resulted in a Japanese surrender.
- Many people believe that this is what caused Japan's surrender. Chester Nimitz said that the A-bombs did not win the war but might have hastened its ending. Admiral Leahy said that the A-bombs "were of no material assistance" in winning war.
b) Drop one on a sparsely populated area and then tell them that we had 2 more to drop if they did not surrender in a week.
c) Let famine kick in since the islands were completely blockaded, and wait for a surrender. Perhaps the death would have not been any better under this scenario.
d) Reach out and offer surrender terms but concede that the Emperor could stay as a figurehead, which was the ultimate outcome. This could have been used with a)-c) above.

All of that said, the use of these weapons on civilians likely had a moderating influence on the US and USSR during the cold war.

Regarding item #a: The realistic Japanese expected a Soviet entry into the Pacific war, and thought it only a matter of time. The USSR had zero amphibious capability back then, and were a threat only on the Asian colonies. Of course Nimitz was right - it was only a matter of time. But with each passing month hundreds of thousands were dying in combat in China, Southeast Asia, and many of those were civilians starving to death. Delaying a single month would have killed more people than both atom bombings. Admiral Leahy was no idiot, but in technical terms he might as well have been. Born in 1875, he had only the foggiest notion of atoms and all that stuff. Actual quote by the old man:

That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.

You can find all kinds of such "quotes" by people who didn't know what they were talking about. Some were simply liars - Eisenhower was an example of that type.

Item #b was considered, and dismissed as impractical. Smashing a few villages or flattening some rice fields wasn't going to be convincing. The disbelievers among the Japanese high command opined Hiroshima might be a 1-shot deal, and the US knew all along if one bomb was used a second one would be necessary. Recall that after the Soviet entry into the war, and after 2 A-bombs were used, the fanatics still staged a coup to try to prevent broadcast of the Emperor's surrender message to Japan.

Item #c: this is what the US Navy wanted to happen - starve them out. Hardly anybody dies except Japanese. AND the hundreds of thousands of Allied POWs who were already on the verge of death. As you suggest, not a clever solution except to buttress the Navy's claim to winning the war.

Item #d: This is precisely what the US did. Public opinion here at home wouldn't allow it to be stated in as many words, but over and over again it was stated indirectly - hinted at. Only after the Emperor realized that the US would NOT have to invade, but could smash what remained of Japan to flinders with the new bombs did he relent and admit the obvious. Hirohito was directly responsible for a million Japanese deaths because he refused to surrender after it was obvious to any sane human being Japan could not prevail. His plan was to cause so many US battlefield deaths the US would give in and let Japan off easy. Didn't work. Iwo Jima happened. Okinawa happened. Until the very last he hoped to make the killing fields the beaches of Japan where 15,000 kamikaze planes and dug in defensive forces outnumbering the US Army and Marines would stun the US with defeat. That wasn't going to happen, despite what the history books claim. Almost all the deaths when the invasion finally happened would be Japanese. And in that event the US would have surpassed Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews in atrocity. Sad to say, at the time most all the world would have applauded the megadeaths in Japan. Things look very different in hindsight.

Given the way things worked out and what might have been; Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be viewed as the "least bad" outcome.

You can't face up to what is a horrendous war crime. The justification that you present could be used in any conflict. Here's one:- Should have dropped an Atomic bomb on Cuba 60 years that would have ended the blockade and Cubans could be free. Here's another:- Iran is a danger to the world, we'll lose a lot of people if we invade, dropping a few atomic bombs would be a lot kinder in the long run. And what about: If only we had bombed the Soviets & the Chinese & the Koreans before they got the bomb the world would be much safer.

The truth is the allies just had to wait and the Japanese would run out of fuel, supplies and spare parts, and their planes and vehicles would have just stopped. Blockading of food would not be necessary.

And, of course, if the US hadn't threatened Japan with their warships, trade or else, (by modern standards, another war crime) then Japan would have happily remained isolated from the rest of the world and would never have even thought of building a military or invading another country.

And, of course, if the US hadn't threatened Japan with their warships, trade or else, (by modern standards, another war crime) then Japan would have happily remained isolated from the rest of the world and would never have even thought of building a military or invading another country.

"happily remained isolated"...

In this alternate reality there were no other navies in existence. Japan lucked out with the US bully-boy visits. It was a just-in-time wake-up call to install an efficient centralized government. To send students off in all directions to soak up modern technology. The downside is that the new government was Emperor-centralized, and the religion & associated mythology they created made the lowest Japanese peasant a God himself compared with any other humans in the world. One of the reasons they were so beastly to the Chinese.

And you still push the idea of Russiagate as if it was valid when it was a fraud.

I don't know how you draw these conclusions from my comment @118.

I DON'T assert that Manafort is pro-Russian and I DON'T see Russiagate as valid at all. I explicitly state that Manafort was likely used to further the Russiagate hoax.

The FBI began investigating Manafort in 2014.

I've also proposed a scenario whereby Manafort's greed (willingness to work for any high-paying client) drew the ire of the Deep State so that he was not just 'used' but a target as well (to be made an example of). Working for Ukraine opposition Parties doesn't mean Manafort is pro-Russian any more than his working for dictators like Marcos or Savimbi meant anything more than a paycheck.

And I've speculated that Mueller might've hoped to get Manafort to provide false witness against Wikileaks. Perhaps Manafort's refusal to do so is the real reason why Mueller pulled the settlement deal?

After the "Arab Spring", the new project of the elites is the "European Spring" promoted by the "DIEM25" movement, of which Julian Assange is a member ( thus toom uch for an indpendent actor/citizen/"journalist"...) along with Yanis Varoufakis, advocating for a Europe of the regions in a federaliced Europe, focused in municipalities around big cities, in a return to structures proper of the Middle Ages, where around 50 regions were part of Europe, as it is explained by the philopsphers behind this idea like Ulrike Guérot...These are the ideas around programs/ politicians/activists/organizations promoting the "commons"...

The European Union is morally and culturally bankrupt, according to the German philosopher and historian Ulrike Guérot. It's time to put the EU project to its grave. Guérot contemplates a European republic that consists of 50 regions around conglomerates of large cities, with a recognized identity and a shared economic and cultural interest. A decisive Europe that reinvents itself.(...)

(...)Guérot says that our values must be classified differently: far from the failed nation states in which many people no longer recognize themselves or feel represented. In the Middle Ages, Europe knew more than 50 different regions. These regions around the nodes of the city should become the new provinces of the European Republic in which all are equal. The Europe of Citizens will be born and the elite project of the European Union will be buried.

Why would Assange, an Australian citizen and "independent journalist" be a member of an organization which promotes the destruction of European nation-states into tiny Euro-regions? What dog he has in this fight?

Independently of the beautiful prospects presented as propaganda for this "project", what would be the benefits for the average European citizen in a Federalized Europe of the regions?

Will we be all equal, as they claim, or we, and our increasing discontent, will be better managed in a capitalist system in its death rattle?

How do we will protect ourselves, once being pulverized into tiny regions, in front of heavy armed hegemons already out of its senses and control, like the US?

What lecture we take out of from the Venezuelan experience related to the power of resistance of a whole nation-state and its national army which remain strongly united against a bully with hegemonic pretensions?

Why the Russians, whose power of resistance relies in the cohesiveness of a huge nation-state, so much defend Assange who is promoting precisely the opposite for the Europan nation-states?

Which world powers, and ideologies, would benefit from a Europe without historic nation-states?

To do that in a world still dominated by globalization and multinational corporations, along with berserk military aggressors like the US, would be just another form of divide and conquer and an even more savage race to the bottom.

There's lots wrong with nation-states, but right now they're the only possible counter-force against corporate globalization.

"And why did "America First" Trump hire Manafort who had extensive Russian contacts and pro-Russian activities that drew the ire of US officials?"

Subsequently, you stated @119:

“Manafort's connections to Russians...”

“There's no evidence that Manafort used any Russian connections (if he had any)...”

"But it's possible that Manafort could also have run afoul of the Deep State. I don't see him as necessarily "pro-Russian"...”

“It could be that some in the Deep State believe that he went too far in his pursuit of business - and that he did so knowing that it angered some important people. This would help to explain why his settlement was rescinded.”

“Whatever his ties with "pro-Russians" or Russians themselves”

In fact, your whole post @119 is imbued with the idea and suggestion that Manafort is pro-Russian.

In your most recent post @130 you finally clearly state:

“I DON'T assert that Manafort is pro-Russian and I DON'T see Russiagate as valid at all..”

But then undermine that declaration by making the following single-sentence paragraph:

“The FBI began investigating Manafort in 2014.”

Which, incorrectly, gives the impression that Manafort was under long term investigation for pro-Russian acticities

It does matter whether Manafort was working for Pro-Russian interests or not, it is disingenuous to state/imply it doesn’t matter, it can’t be brushed over – either he was or he wasn’t - and either way there are implications!

Let’s take that FBI investigation in 2014. What was it about? It was all about Manafort evading taxes. But no evidence was found and Manafort was cleared.

Then the case was reopened in 2016 and what has Manafort been found guilty of in 2018? Tax evasion.

Despite everything you assume and read in the MSM, no evidence of Manafort working for pro-Russian interests (or otherwise against the interests of the US) was found.

Now, it is obvious that Manafort fiddled his taxes and it is likely that the FBI knew that and had evidence of this in 2014 (if not, they would be incompetent, would they not?). So what would that mean? Given that the FBI have a long history of turning criminals into informants it would seem that from 2014 Manafort was very definitely working for US interests and they used him to spy on the oligarchs and Ukrainian politicians (which, tiresomely I must point out were not pro-Russian). (In fact, I suspect he had a much longer term relationship with US intelligence agencies – I fail to see how he could do his work without such a relationship).

I don’t really have more to say on this issue.

My main concern is about what the US (via Bill Browder and his ilk) was/is doing to Russia and I hoped that Trump would make a change. You helped me see Trump more clearly and that there would be no change and that, in fact, things would get worse.

I wrote about the need to propagate messengers on the Assange thread, but have come here to post part of what the message's content must include:

"Yet today’s mainstream economics treats the normal tendency to polarize between creditors and debtors, the wealthy and the have-nots, as an anomaly. It has been the norm for the last five thousand years, but economics sidesteps actual empirical history as if it is an anomaly in the fictional parallel universe created by the mainstream’s unrealistic assumptions. Instead of being a science, such economics is science fiction. It trains students in cognitive dissonance that distracts them from understanding Classical Antiquity and the driving dynamics of Western civilization." Hudson Part 4

But there's far more than just the above. Many understand how universities have been captured in ways similar to Executive branch regulatory agencies, but few are aware those actions represent the third act in the war to bend minds within the USA. Hudson explains this episode in a longer, greater detail than this essential excerpt:

"The Republicans and industrialists saw that America’s prestige colleges had been founded long before the Civil War, basically as religious colleges to train the clergy. They taught British free trade theory, serving the New England commercial and banking interests and Southern plantation owners. But free trade kept the United States dependent on England. My book America’s Protectionist Takeoff describes how the American School of Political Economy, led by Henry Carey and E. Peshine Smith (William Seward’s law partner), developed an alternative to what was being taught in the religious colleges.

"This led to a new view of the history of Western civilization and America’s role in fighting against entrenched privilege. William Draper’s Intellectual Development of Europe, and Andrew Dixon White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology saw the United States as breaking free from the feudal aristocracies that were a product of the way in which antiquity collapsed, economically and culturally."

It's very tempting to copy/paste the entirety of Hudson's part-4 as it's all revelatory in a radical/revolutionary manner. Argh! I can't help but include this exchange between Simon and Hudson:

"JS: So this is how the Wharton School’s first professor of economics, Simon Patten, one of the founders of American sociology, fits into this anti-rentier tradition! That is such a revelation to me! They developed an analysis of technology’s effects on the economy, of monopoly pricing and economic rent as unearned income that increases the cost of living and cost of production. They explained the benefits of public infrastructure investment. Today that is called “socialism,” but it was industrial capitalists who took the lead in urging such public investment, so as to lower their cost of doing business.

"MH: The first U.S. business schools in the late 19th century described rentiers as unproductive. That is why today’s neoliberals are trying to rewrite the history of Institutionalism in a way that expurgates the Americans who wanted the government to provide public infrastructure to make America a low-cost economy, undersell England and other countries, and evolve into the industrial giant it became by the 1920s.

"JS: That was Simon Patten’s teaching at the Wharton School — government-subsidized public infrastructure as the fourth factor of production.

"MH: Yes. America’s ruling political class tried to make the United States a dominant economy instead of a rentier economy of landlords and financial manipulators."

Easy to see why the Green New Deal's being so violently opposed. Also easy to see that a very different version of MAGA would work, but it wouldn't serve Trump or the Oligarchy so they would oppose it. IMO, USA could compete on even terms with China and Russia, but that isn't how the Oligarchy wants to feed its greed disease as it's too hard--it requires actual work. I recall Reagan's use of the term Welfare Queens and now see it as 100% Projection.

Yes, I act as if Michael Hudson's a prophet of sorts, when in truth that's precisely what he is. So, read his works and become enlightened so that you can then begin your role as messenger.

Furthermore, I suspect he's a spoiler for Sanders and even Biden! Why Biden? Because Biden has the best chances of beating Trump. If Buttigieg becomes the nominee then you can believe he's an establisment plant in it to give Trump a second term, cause the U.S. will never vote a gay man and an unknown for President.

And one more thing: just in case, Biden or Sanders make it, Schultz is in it as a spoiler as well, cause this time there's a double-tier spoiler. The Zioelites are taking no chances. Don't listen to what Schultz says about Trump, very little, listen to what he says about the other side!

Here's something else I strongly suspect. Biden is on his own. That's right folks! The establishment don't want Biden! He's been taking a beating in the media. They don't want him in the race! The Zionist Masters want Trump to get a 2nd term NOT Biden to win. But Biden knows he can win and really wants it, and knows it's now or never and he also wants to fulfill his late son, Beau's, wish. However Biden has a slight problem with Dems. He authored a bill in the Clinton era that was responsible for the mass incarceration of blacks. So what's he going to do to remedy this serious weakness? He can't bring Stacy Abrams on board cause Dems are already knocking it down as exploiting a black woman as a prop. So Biden's going to turn to someone else who's not a woman. He's from the South. He's from Florida, a state a Democratic primary candidate absolutely must win for the nomination, and Democrats absolutely need to beat Trump. Clue: He lost the governor's race in a squeaker, and he's black! It would be like an Obama Biden repeat in reverse. He's none other than ANDREW GILLUM and he's very popular in Florida. Biden's going to make him an offer he can't refuse! After Gillum's frustrating squeaker loss for governor, Andrew Gillum won't turn down a stepping stone to the Presidency! I'm telling you, I really suspect Biden's gonna pull this out and turn the entire plan to give Trump a 2nd term on its head!

I don't know why I have this impression. Maybe because it was reported Biden was trying for the early veep strategy and had met with Abrams, but I think Abrams turned it down. So I suspect he'll make Gillum an offer.

Anyway, I might be wrong. It's just a feeling I got when I saw Gillum on cablenews today. It's not anything he said, but more like a lightbulb switched on in my head! Sure, it's been reported he might enter the race himself, but I don't buy it unless he enters to buy time and later run with Biden, not sure. But Gillum unlike others, all the women, wouldn't be giving up a seat in Congress, and Biden would be tarred and feathered if he picks a white guy. So hello--enter Andrew Gillum.

Oh one more thing, Gillum, like Abrams and now Buttigieg is a Dem rising star, so even if Biden doesn't pick a woman, the criticism would die down fast. Let's see if my hunch is correct. Biden is set to announce soon.

I sense that there a bit of game being played here. And that game is this:

> Blame everything on the Jews/Israel/Jewish Zionists;

> Label all resulting criticism as antisemitism.

As it gets more difficult to deny the existence of a Deep State that serves the oligarchy, funneling all criticism to Jews or Russia is a convenient way to avoid any real discussion and shut down discontent.

I'm not denying a Jewish/Zionist agenda but the combination of antisemitism and neo-McCarthyism means that Deep State actors like Bush, Clintons, Brennan, Mueller, McCain, Pence, Pompeo, etc. can remain comfortably hidden.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Consider: Circe and some others rail against Trump and Israel but then support Sanders who is running as a candidate of a Party that supports Zionism.

Basically, the article outlines systemic financial rape of Ukraine by Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs*, Ukrainian politicians and Senior US Democratic politicians. It also alleges that this same group were involved in discrediting Trump and interfering in the US election*.

(*To clarify, this does not mean Putin and the Russian Government; there is no evidence of their involvement.)

In a Saker article from last year I ran into an interesting subsection. Here it is:

Trump as the “disposable President” for the Neocons?

The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of “ownership” is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran. It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: “we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let’s use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let’s use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of “our guys” when the time is right“. Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the “wrong” regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire. The Neocons could use Trump as a “disposable President” who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran. For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don’t go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.

For some reason an ancient acronym popped into my head while reading this: Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly. (It's to help memorize the resister color code - BBROYGBVGW.)

Lots of debate here about whether or not "Trump Gives Willingly", but in the end it doesn't matter. The apartheid Zionist state is using him as a disposable shop towel, and for whatever reasons he is cooperating fully.

Trump is becoming an ever-more spectacular failure. IMO this is why the coming Democratic Primaries are going to be a really big deal. Just as Trump was given a free ride in 2016, the most rabid of the warmongering Dems are going to get lots of good Press. And "reported" polling victories. Example from today:

This "surge" must be true, for I found the story on the internet. Doesn't that young face look "presidential"? And best of all, Mayor Pete is stoutly in Holy Israel's corner. Quite unlike so many of the near-traitors running against him.

@138 jackrabbit.. that is a reasonable thought as i see it..the deep state is harder to define...i find it odd circe is okay with sanuders... tulsi gabbard.. does she have any chance of getting anywhere? i figure by the time politicians get close to the usa presidency, they have been bought and paid for.. i can't see anyone who true intentions to better the life of the people of the or the world for that matter - getting anywhere near close to a chance of being pres of the usa..

@139 desolation row.. thanks! they are depressing, but a good place to understand the thinking and just how whacked it is! cheers!

I didn't mean to say that Manafort was "pro-Russian". That was a mistake. I don't know if he's pro-Russian or not. He seems 100% pro-Manafort.

But there's the possibility that some Deep Staters saw it differently. The Wikipedia entry indicated that this may be so. In any case, IMO they placed him in the campaign because he was vulnerable and he had some connection - however tenuous it may be - to Russia/Russians that could be used to further Russiagate - which I believe was planned all along.

Now, Mueller's prosecution of Manafort produced wierdness that difficult's to explain. Some possibilities:

1) Manafort is just difficult to deal with so Mueller's frustration is not surprising;

2) Mueller was trying to mask that Manafort was always playing along (maybe an operative);

3) Manafort had pissed off some Deep-Stater (as suggested by Wikileaks);

4) Mueller hoped to get Manafort to give false testimony against Wikileaks or some other target;

5) something else entirely;

6) two or more of the above.

A clue to solving this riddle might be found in Roger Stone's claims that he himself (Roger Stone) had a connection to Wikileaks. AFAICT this claim seems to be made from whole cloth. And comes after Manafort (AFAIK) has not be willingly to testify that about connections with Wikileaks (which he may or may not have had).

We won't actually know for sure if Manafort provided testimony against Wikileak until a Wikileaks trial but if he did, then Stone's claims would be superfluous so I am assuming that Manafort refused (if asked). If this reasoning regarding Stone's claims is correct, then #2 is false - Manafort was never playing along, and #4 is correct: Manafort refused to provide false testimony against Wikileaks or adamently denied having any connection to Wikileaks (trying hard to ignore the evident wish that he claim that he did!).

So why was Manafort targeted? There are many businessmen with some connection to Russia. Many of them are probably sleasy and fail to report income on US taxes. Manafort is a political consultant, so that was relevant. But MAYBE there is also some truth to Manafort's have drawn the ire of the Deep State. In any case, WHY he was targeted is tangential to my analysis. It's just a curiosity.

We KNOW that:

> Manafort previously worked in Ukraine for opposition parties;

> Manafort was made campaign manager over many other possible choices;

> Trump praised Putin and Wikileaks during his campaign and called upon them to act on his behalf;Strange behavior for the 'America First' Nationalist who admired Bolton and called for Snowden to get the death penalty

> Trump didn't collude with Russia - as verified by Mueller;In fact, the oligarchs that Trump is said to have colluded with are Russian Jews with stronger connections to Israel than Russia.

The take away quotes
"
Given Australia has the highest level of income dependency on China of any developed nation as 30.6% of all Australian export income came from China last year, equivalent to US$87 billion (twice the trade volume with Japan, Australia’s next biggest trading partner), and Australia’s coal industry is deeply dependent on its exports to China, which account for 3.7% of Australia’s GDP, this prompted much speculation that Beijing is punishing coal companies as retribution for political acts by Canberra, one of Washington’s closest allies.
"
"
"It is baffling how the country concerned could whip up 'security threats' posed by other countries or companies ... while engaging in acts that endanger cyber security themselves," said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, sending a clear message to Australia: if you continue to side with the US on the Huawei - or any other issue - you can keep your coal.
"

There is a blues song that has a line in it..."One monkey don't stop the show".
The article writes how China has same quality coal on its way from Columbia at lower price.

How is an anti-Semitism Czar not a pro-Jewish Czar? How is a pro-Jewish Czar not a violation of the US Constitution's separation clause? Is there a similar position for other American groups, like Catholics, Christians, Blacks, Asians, Palestinians, etc.?

And isn't this position redundant (a waste of US tax-payer money) given that the "Jewish State" of Israel already works to protect Jews of the diaspora?

One ironic thing about these shameless foreign agents is that by any historical measure it's today's pro-Zionists who are spewing the core anti-Semitic theme, that all Jews are inherently part of some global conspiracy. Back in the day anti-semites usually conflated Jews with communism. Hitler would've been the first to insist that to be anti-Marxist automatically meant one had to be an anti-semite, since those were synonymous. Today an old-style anti-semite would be more likely to say that all Jews are Zionist agents, and that to be anti-Zionist has to mean being anti-Jew.

So we see the company the pro-Zionists are keeping, since they agree 100% with the anti-semites that all Jews are inherently Zionists, and you can't oppose one without opposing the other.

Paul Manafort did work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and VY's political party Party of the Regions whose base was in eastern Ukraine among Russian-speaking Ukrainians from 2004 to 2014. Manafort also did some work for Oleg Deripaska (2005 - 2009) and for Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch who currently lives in exile in Austria and who has not been in Ukraine since Yanukovych's overthrow in February 2014. Deripaska is thought to be close to Vladimir Putin (though MoA barflies may have seen that Youtube video where Putin wipes the floor with Deripaska several times over for not paying factory employees what they were due) and Dmytro Firtash is wanted by the US to stand trial on corruption charges.

It is possible that Manafort is being targeted so he can be persuaded or blackmailed into revealing information about Firtash that would enable the US to force Austria into extraditing the Ukrainian businessman.

You contradicted yourself; on the one hand you say blaming Zionists for everything makes it easier to deny the deep state that serves the oligarchy.

Who do you think that oligarchy is mostly comprised off???

Then you question the necessity of an antisemitism czar? If you believe that blaming Zionists is counter to your own goals exposing the deep state that serves the oligarchs, and the White House equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism to muzzle those blaming Zionists THEN YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED, didn't you??? So why are you then bitching about the Constitution and wasting tax payer's money?

Lemme tell you something, if you don't recognize the power behind this move and their goal to make us all more powerless, then you're blind as a bat and hopeless. If you don't admit that only the top, the oligarchs as you put it, have the power to change the rules, by muzzling free speech and ignoring division of church and state by pushing for this unlawful legislation, then you are deceptive. If you don't admit that consequently if they have the power and want this done then it must benefit them to protect them from EXPOSURE then you're not interested in the truth.

Ever hear of OWS??? OCCUPY WALL STREET? Why do you think they were shut down? The top 1% were being exposed and feeling threatened and started to smear the movement as antisemitic. And you think I'm contradicting myself for supporting Sanders? It's better than what you're doing here protecting the one percent oligarchs with your contradiction, twisted logic and pretending that criticism of Zionism obfuscates the oligarchy controlling the deep state when instead it exposes them and proof is that this attack on free speech and their efforts to shut down OWS make use of the same antisemitism bullshet smear. It's the same m.o. the one percent used on OWS, iow, the one percent, the oligarchs controlling the deep state are Zio nists! Why else would they they have labelled OWS as antisemitic??? To destroy that movement just like they're doing with the BDS movement and criticism of Zionism because these represent threats to their power. So in muzzling me for rightly blaming Zionists for their control and abuses of power with your ridicule you are in fact protecting the oligarchs aka the one percent that you pretend so much to want to expose!

By whom? It never seizes to amaze me how every Russian businessman is “close to Vladimir Putin”. Deripaska is only “close to Putin” insofar as he’s the owner of Russian aluminum industry, which is an important part of Russian economy.

Deripaska’s fortune was made in the 90s. He’s the only Russian ex-oligarch who did not participate in the looting of Russia via voucher privatization and loans-for-shares schemes (see Privatization in Russia). Instead, he was given money by the mob to invest on their behalf (for a cut), which he did, buying up various assets. Through some shrewd moves he managed to become the owner of significant share of these assets. He also married Yeltsin’s grand daughter, which was important at the time and gave him special protection. The mob boss (who now lives in Israel) sued him in London court, but dropped all claims and settled out of court a month after Berezovsky lost his case against Abramovitch.

As you can see, Deripaska’s fortune is not connected to Putin in any way (unlike the fortunes of Rothenberg brothers and Yuri Kovalchuk). If it’s true that Deripaska has hired Paul Manafort, he would do so to improve the image of his businesses in the West and not to advance the interests of the Russian government.

The ultimate in "stealth technology" must be a black hole. Now that it's possible to "image" a black hole, it really makes me wonder how much longer the US will go on squandering billions on stealth technology:

I'm so excited that we finally get to share what we have been working on for the past year! The image shown today is the combination of images produced by multiple methods. No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all.

When I said "...Deripaska is thought to be close to Vladimir Putin ...", that was in the context of the comment I made @ 150 regarding US Deep State perceptions about Manafort's connections with Ukrainian and Russian business people, and why Manafort might be a target for investigation (with the intent on the part of those who benefit from his investigation to blackmail him in some way and force him to yield information that could be used to incriminate Trump - falsely or not - as a Kremlin stooge).

"banishing DISQUS" in your post made me think (at first) this was a person commenting there. After making a search to get the SST address I learned he was dumping the "service" which creates his web site. A poster there said what I've come to believe myself:

I am becoming increasingly suspicious of all the intermediaries trying to insert themselves into the discussion process here in the land o' Internet.

IMO this person is wrong only about the "trying" part - some of these 'services' make decisions about what is allowed to be posted and what is not. Naturally I've got my own suspicions about who might be behind this. The other day at a Disqus-hosted site a post I made about NATO threatening to attack Russia from the Black Sea using 'freedom of navigation' as an excuse just disappeared. Not the first time this has happened, either.

The MOA site is a bit clunky, but so far I've had fewer problems here. I suspect most of them are related to an obsolete list of "keywords" which flag a post for human inspection. A kind of funny tale is about the time I was describing the injustice Douglas MacArthur arranged in executing a competent Japanese General who had defeated him. The site had such a hair-trigger "Nanny" program that the name "Yamashita" was deemed offensive.

These days most of the censors have a more accurate focus - to protect the Deep State and a certain little pissant nation on the fringe of West Asia.

It's a joint effort. Jewish Zionists have been successful 'cause they allied with powerful interests and helped to further those interests. Your focus on just one group, and on Trump as their agent, warps our understanding of what is really going on.

Furthermore, Jewish/Zionist influence has progressed to the point where the entire establishment is Zionist. No serious Democratic or Republican candidate is against Military spending or Zionism. Voters have no choice.

So it makes no sense to me that you to rail against Trump and Zionism and then support Democratic Party candidate Sanders. Do you really think that Sanders will be anti-Zionist in any possible way? Do you really think that Sanders can be trusted to challenge any of the establishment Democrats in any meaningful way after he caved-in to Hillary?

Sanders is running to split the progressive vote so that an establishment-friendly Democrat can be the nominated to run against Trump. That establishment Democrat will then be a leading contender for 2024.

It's all part of the duopoly's gaming of the political system. A game that I refuse to play.

@147 jackrabbit.. the press will continue to fail to ask important questions.. at this point they are primarily couriers for the empire, as opposed to a force for anything good, or a check on these same forces..

@148 russ.. that is exactly how i see it too.. my radar always goes up when the topic of anti-semitism/zionism is raised for all the obvious reasons.. who is raising it - a zionist, or an anti-semite? it could be either..

I suspect there is a program in progress to make printed books as rare as hen's teeth. The big companies want to make a profit each and every time something gets read. What bothers me is how Public Libraries are buying into this scheme with their eBooks which can be read on a patron's handheld device. How long until the book shelves start being dismantled?

This grab for profits is going on in all areas. Have you noticed how it's darned near impossible to purchase a dedicated CD player anymore - unless you want to pay really big bucks for it? Every single player I have was sold for DVDs, and is usable only because it has the extra CD capability. What will I do when every DVD player on the market no longer has that ability?

Big Business made a big mistake with the Compact Discs - they provided almost perfect sound and were nearly eternal unless mishandled. The companies didn't repeat that mistake with the DVDs - these are extremely flimsy and with the thin glue lines at the center and outer edge are designed to fail. The consumer "copy" media is even worse, for with few exceptions none of the DVD-R or DVD+R media I've used is still working after six or seven years. Even the old VHS tapes held up better than that!

@159 zachary.. interesting topic and i think you are correct in your speculations on all that..

i'm in canada - westcoast... you can go to london drugs and pick up a cd player for about 35 bucks that comes with a radio.. it is small and portable and works fine.. but you are correct - they are hard to find! i think they want to make cds obsolete..

as for books.. i read hard and soft cover books all the time.. my wife has a kindle.. i have watched the whole process unfold since it's inception.. e books are a complete rip off where amazon, or whoever the retailer is - makes a killing.. and yes, the libraries use them too... as you say - someone is selling someone on all this and it isn't to our benefit.. books still exist and i am much more a fan of them then e books, but my wife loves her kindle..

#159: Not only is it profitable for corporations, but it will allow the Empire to one day flip the switch and “disappear” all ebooks that contain the real history. People who still remember the real history will be called “conspiracy theorists”, and any physical books that still remain will be called “elaborated hoaxes”.

In what year did they ally? 1950??? For fuchs sake, the powerful interests today ARE ZIONIST!

And your split the vote narrative makes no sense at all cause there's Warren and others with the same left views as Sanders.

You're spinning and not being totally honest again. Back to your former self.

James and Russ, a tool would see it that way. But let me ask you: What percentage of Jews are anti-Zionist and do you really believe that Israel would be able to carry on war crimes ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, Apartheid, deprivation and collective punishment IF the majority of Jews, who are extremely politically active, were Anti-Zionist???

I'm with you on the movies - mostly I don't watch them either. But I do have a growing collection of documentaries, both in science and history. In the US if you own the physical disc it's still legal to make a backup copy, but for how much longer I can't say.

While I'm ranting, there is the issue of Librarians starting to make purchases based on their own political preferences. At a library book sale last week I winced to see the number of anti-vaxxer books. The climate-change-denial books. They may tell each other this is for "fairness", but I doubt that's the case. My own library used to have all three movies of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged 1, 2, and 3 series - despite their awful ratings. Lots of Christian Zionism too.

I don't believe a single one of them would dare have a section of Hero Hitler books which spoke of his career as a Good Thing and how the Holocaust was almost certainly a huge exaggeration. Even though this would be so very "fair".

Not only could the eBooks be "disappeared", but they can also be altered. If electronic copies are the only ones around, who will notice if some subtle alterations got made in every single one of them.

I'm paranoid as hell these days, and avoid even recent hardcopy reprints if I can afford the original books.

I finally had time to read the latest Whitney Webb piece – #2 of 8? , and a long read – which, as I recall, was linked here by mourning dove. Excellent work by Ms Webb! & mourning dove! for bringing this.

which leads to:Memoria del Saqueo by Fernando Solanas 2003
Documentary on the events that led to the economic collapse of Argentina in 2001 which wiped out the middle class and raised the level of poverty to 57.5%. Central to the collapse was the implementation of neo-liberal policies which enabled the swindle of billions of dollars by foreign banks and corporations. Many of Argentina's assets and resources were shamefully plundered. Its financial system was even used for money laundering by Citibank, Credit Suisse, and JP Morgan. The net result was massive wealth transfers and the impoverishment of society which culminated in many deaths due to oppression and malnutrition.

So Whitney Webb pulls back the covers and exposes the “players” (WJC). I hope she has good security!
Michael Hudson explains the “scam”, or at least part of it. Who “owns” the IMF, World Bank, ect.?
And Fernando Solanas documents the “results”. Looks a lot like US/UK/EU/CA/AU/ect. today eh?

While Russiagate was going vira, few noticed there's an even more extensive and vicious Chinagate going on.
The Chinagate disinfo is being waged all across the 5liars land and its brazenness make the Russiagate B.S. looks like kindergarten stuffs.

Viz....
*China is gonna take over Oz, NZ , only uncle scam can save them from the yellow peril. [sic]

*China has a vast army of sleepers in Oz, NZ, ready to rise up when the Chinese embassy give the command [[sic]

*The Pentagon shill in NZ, Anne Marie Brady, even accused China of sabotaging her car, burglarising her home and sending her anon warning letter to boot !

OMFGawd !

Is there no pitch too low that the CIA/MI6 MOFO wouldnt stoop to ?

While officially the Kiwi pm Jacinda Arden play down the accusations as unverified, we all know how this kind of game works,... the shit sticks.
No matter that its never been substantiated or even after it's been debunked...
Examples abound, like 'Mao murdered millions', 'TAM massacre', 'Tibet oppression', 'those oh so scary Chinese hackers'., ...
..the latest being that 'million Uighur gulags'

Just watch how its being parroted in MOA, UNZ...
by supposedly 'well informed' pundits [sic]
never mind the MSM. !

Everybody knows the 5liars tptb are irredeemable
psychopaths, but Whats wrong with these 5liars sheeples, something in their water ?

My understanding was that DISQUS is purely a comment-management system. The format and typeface at SST remains unchanged which tends to support this assumption. I SUSPECT that Ol' (irritable) Pat outsmarted himself by introducing DISQUS. He was no stranger to making comments disappear for all kinds of nitpicking ideological reasons, such as not agreeing with Pat. But another factor could be that vetting comments for dangerously stupid content could waste a lot of a blogger's time. When Xymphora switched to DISQUS I got an email from DISQUS 'acknowledging' my first DISQUS comment which felt very creepy. Comments at Xymphora plunged from dozens/ hundreds per topic to zero/ a handful per topic overnight.

Its introduction at SST dramatically reduced the volume of comment per topic, although not quite as dramatic as at Xymphora.

I gather from SST's invitation to contribute to a verdict on DISCUS that DISQUS had its own ideological comment-dumping agenda which was giving even Pat's 'favoured' commentators the irrits too.

Fires are burning in the hearts of Europeans; heating the melting pots of multiculturalism to the point of boiling. Bubbles of violence are already sporadically spitting out into a polarised citizenry nervously looking on. People are being scalded, buildings burned. Refugee centres in Germany have been torched at night by gangs of skinheads dressed in black. Windows smashed on nights of uncontrolled violence. The very eldest members in that country will remember Krystal Nacht, Crystal Night - the Night of Broken Glass, when the windows of shops and houses owned by Germany’s Jews were smashed in an orgy of organised violence.

Since the Second World War, successive governments of Germany have been careful to rebuild and reshape their society in a manner that took into account the feelings of it’s neighbours to the east and west. Those neighbours, it accepted unconditionally, had been the innocent victims of the terror unleashed upon them by the Third Reich and it’s armies. Germany, at the point of the guns of the victorious allied powers, took the sole responsibility for the destruction of European towns and cities, the deaths of millions of men, women and children and the dislocation of millions more. The lines of refugees, who roamed in a state of trauma along the rubble strewn roads that crisscrossed Europe as they looked for a place to settle and rebuild their broken lives, was a scene that the states of Europe vowed never to witness or experience again.

For the next seventy years, Western European states pulled their sovereignty to create a Common Market, that grew and developed into an Economic Community and finally a European Union. The European Project was believed to be the solution to ending the intermittent outbreaks of political and religious violence that had plagued the continent for two millennia. The sharing of culture and creativity, the standardisation of rules and regulations, would it was thought, control the egotistical endeavours that had pitted nation against nation. States could concentrate their energies on building clean environments in which their well educated citizens would live, work, play and prosper. Workers and their wages would be of a commonly high standard that would eliminate regional jealousies and see an an to the destitution that had wracked the lives of the working men and women. Wildernesses and waterways would be clean and protected. Standards would rise across the continent and this standardisation would bring about an egalitarian, democratic utopia that would make poverty and war obsolete. For the two generations that were born after the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, all appeared to be well. The Union was so successful that non-members threw off the shackles of the fascist or communist dictatorships that had governed their lives and applied to join the club. Little did they know.

By the time that the third generation had come of age, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, unilaterally opened the borders of her people’s country and one million Africans, Arabs and Subcontinental’s walked in. The citizenry were not consulted, neither were their representatives in the German Parliament, the Bundestag. Nor were the members of her own cabinet and the governing Christian Democrat Party. One person made that decision. There were warnings from all viewpoints, from across the political spectrum, but they were ignored. The relatively poorer, less developed, more traditional, conservative, sincerely believing Christian countries of southern Europe, who had not so long before thrown off the yolk of their dictatorships, with the hope and expectation of finding better lives in the modern, democratic union of European nations, were swamped. To reach their dreamlands of the rich northern and western European countries, myriad streams of economic migrants walked relentlessly north, intermingled with genuine refugees fleeing for their lives from the Syrian civil war, through the impoverished fields of the Balkan states; nations still rebuilding themselves following the end of their own civil wars. Those fields must have been familiar to the immigrants. They had left homelands that were economically no worse off than those of the Greeks and Slavs, through whose fields they were now carelessly trampling and littering with the disposable detritus of desperation.

Onward they marched. This unrequested army of penniless cheap labour, ready to work in any job, for any wages, ready to sleep in any accommodation on offer; ready and willing to take advantage of the rules and regulations that were designed to guarantee a common, high standard of living for European citizens, throughout Europe. Regulations that would protect their human dignity in a way that their own countrymen, governing in their own birthplace, would not care to do. Ironically, they shared with the governing bureaucratic elite of Europe’s nation states, the same ignorance of, and lack of compassion for, the workers of Europe, who would now see their hard won fair wages, terms and conditions being undercut by a workforce who had never had that luxury of stringent labour laws. For those misfortunate native born souls who had crashed through the regulatory safety nets of red tape that had been designed to catch them should they fall and were now sleeping rough on their own streets, could now experience the bitterness of peering through the windows of hostels and apartments that had been allocated to the incoming migrants sitting down to enjoy their evening meals. The system had been smashed. No waiting in queues to be assessed, no questions asked, no paperwork to be shown; wage slips, birth certificates, bank certificates. Nothing. Borders were being crossed with neither passports nor visas, official documentation, accommodation and employment were given whether or not the immigrants could read, write or speak the language. Every rule and regulation that had been passed into law by governments, with the consent of their citizens, on the understanding that it was for the benefit of those citizens and their society as a whole, no longer applied to the foreign born arrivals.

The cherished values we hold so dear like our freedom of speech and expression, that had been fought for over many decades, if not centuries, often against the must tyrannical of regimes and at the cost of countless lives, have been sacrificed upon the secular alter of multiculturalism. All this to accommodate incoming migrants with little or no experience of such fundamental human rights in their homelands, and who it appears have not understood that freedom of speech can often be offensive, unpalatable and contrary to one’s own opinions and beliefs. That is the point of it. It is the contrarian nature of these freedoms that create a diverse public forum. The views of arrivals from Africa and Asia are often unpalatable to the citizens of the societies that they have chosen to migrate to, moreover, their views are often contrary to the cultures and the laws of these countries in which they have made their home, which begs the question; why would they have chosen to emigrate to such a place in the first place? To nations whose popular culture they find to be so repellent. When leaving one’s cultural and linguistic home and moving to a new land that is foreign, surely compatibility comes into the equation. Surely some thought is given to whether the views one holds dearly are compatible with the cultural environment one is joining, otherwise what is the point in going there? The old adage springs to my mind…When in Rome, do as the Romans.

These recent arrivals have no interest in integrating. They have no interest in the culture of the host, indeed many even deny that such a thing exists. A Canadian journalist stood on the sidewalk outside a mosque in London asking attendees and passers by, what British culture meant to them? What was it that made one British? Did Britain have a culture? None of them believed that it had a culture. It was multicultural. Possession of a British passport was all that it took to be British. There was no understanding of the traditions of Britain, no respect for it and no loyalty to it. The blond, blue eyed scribe asked one Muslim gentleman, that were she to go to China, apply for a Chinese passport and be accepted, would that make her Chinese? Of course not, he replied.

Eventually the Imam from the mosque complained to the police about her presence outside the building and two metropolitan officers of Indian origin asked her to move along. Before she did, she asked the Imam what it meant to him to be British. He replied…tolerance. That from the lips of a man who didn’t allow women to enter his religious institution. Incredible.

Policemen with dogs now guard hospitals in Bavaria at the request of the medical staff who have faced repeated assaults from patients, the female doctors and nurses in particular. Stabbings, urine being thrown in the faces of staff, men refusing to be treated by female professionals and mob violence breaking out when the diagnosis is unacceptable to their ears. On a flight in the USA a Muslim lady requested that a guide dog and it’s owner be removed from the cabin because her religious sentiments were offended. An immigrant to Italy who murdered a local man, told the court that he did so because the victim was “white and happy”.

Entire neighbourhoods and boroughs have become enclaves within cities. Some cities are becoming enclaves within countries. Integration has not worked. Not because the societies of the host nations have not tried to accept or integrate them but because the immigrants themselves have no interest in reciprocating. A friend of mine who had left Pakistan for a “better life” in Luton, England, has since left for Canada because over the years incessant immigration from his homeland had meant that Luton had become like the Pakistan he had left behind. No doubt, over time, he will find the same experience will overwhelm him in Toronto too.

There will soon come a tipping point. There will be a spark that ignites the powder keg of national emotion and sentiment that is now out in the open, ignored and undefended by remote governments living out their lives in ivory towers, far removed from the reality of their exasperated electorates. There will be a clash of civilisations and this battle of ideas and values will be fought out on the streets of European towns and cities. The genie is already out of the bottle and it seems to be unwilling to stop playing with it’s matches.

@165 zachery... i don't know the process where they buy books - ebooks and etc, for the libraries.. it is interesting what you say.. i imagine mainstream people do mainstream things, or what is seen as mainstream... i am kind of out of the loop in regards the mainstream!